D Question 1 1 pts An employee who commits a tort while acting within the scope of his employment: Time Elap Attempt due Will not be held personally liable for that tort he commits to third parties 7 Minutes May cause their employer to be held liable for any negligent acts they commit to third parties under the doctrine of respondeat superior. May cause their employer to be held liable only if the tort was committed intentionally by the employee under the doctrine of respondeat superior. All of the above. D Question 2 1 pts A principal may be liable to third parties for its agent's actions if: The principal fails to adequately supervise its agent. The principal gives unclear or inadequate instructions to the agent. Fails to properly hire or terminate its agent under the appropriate circumstances. All of the above. D Question 3 2 pts Amtul hired Juan to act as her sales agent in Amtul's auto dealership. Such sales agents normally have authority to enter into sales contracts with customers. However, Amtul has instructed Juan not to enter into any sales contracts before she has had a chance to review the transaction. However, one day Juan entered into a sales contract with William without first consulting Amtul. Has Juan created a contract with William that is binding on the auto dealership in this situation? Yes, Juan did have actual authority to act. Yes, Juan did have express authority to act. Yes, Juan did have implied authority to act. Yes, Juan did have apparent authority to act. D Question 4 2 pts Abdul told Tseng that he wanted to buy Tseng's house "on behalf of a party who wishes her identity not to be known." (That party is Caroline.) Abdul contracts with Tseng on Caroline's behalf to buy the 199+)mail Sus shop S Streams ) Test 3: Match the n... Peeling the Onion:.. Abdul told Tseng that he wanted to buy Tseng's house "on behalf of a party who wishes her identity not to be known." (That party is Caroline.) Abdul contracts with Tseng on Caroline's behalf to buy the house. What is Abdul's liability on this contract? Assume that Abdul had authority to make the contract. O . Abdul is liable because Caroline is an undisclosed principal. Abdul is liable because Caroline is a partially disclosed principal. Abdul can be liable only if he expressly agreed to be liable Abdul is not liable because he was an agent who acted with authority D Question 5 1 pts Ben hired Colleen to purchase a yacht. Ben did not want seller to know that he, Ben was the buyer because he was very rich and he thought that sellers would demand a higher price if they knew who the buyer was. Therefore, he instructed Colleen to inform the sellers that she was acting for an anonymous buyer. Colleen followed these instructions and she entered into a contract to purchase a yacht from Anne. However, Ben did not like the yacht that Colleen had selected, and he refuses to pay the purchase price. Anne insists that Colleen herself pay the purchase price. If Anne sues Colleen to enforce the contract against her, what will be the outcome? O Anne will win because Colleen did not disclose her principal's identity. Anne will win because Colleen did disclose that she was acting as an agent, and not for herself. Anne will lose because Colleen did disclose that she was acting as an agent, and not for herself. Anne will lose because Colleen was acting as an agent with express authority D Question 6 3 pts Graeme was employed as a security guard for Gracie Corporation. Graeme's job was to guard a fenced-in area at the edge one of Gracie's plants, and to use force to keep intruders from climbing the fence to enter the plant. His working hours were from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. About 11:00 p.m. one evening, Graeme drove past his place of employment. He saw a teenager, Johnny, climbing the outside of the fence that he guarded during the day. Angered by this violation of Gracie's property rights and by the fact that Johnny had called him a "fat Nazi moron" only three days earlier, Graeme stopped his car, ran up to the fence, pulled Johnny off the fence, and beat him up. Johnny sues Gracie for Graeme's assault and battery (both of which are intentional torts). He does so under the doctrine of respondeat superior. Which of the following is most true? Gracie is not liable because there is nothing in the facts to indicate that it was at fault in any way. Gracie is not liable because Graeme wasn't acting within the course and scope of his employment. Gracie is not liable because the principal and the agent cannot both be liable for the same tort. Gracie is not liable because Graeme lacked authority to beat up Johnny. 199+ m WGmail Sup shop S Streams O Test 3: Match the n... Peeling the Onion:... Stone hired Mason to work as a janitor in Stone's apartment building. Stone instructed Mason never to leave liquids on the floor and, if there was any unsafe condition in the building, Mason was to put up a warning sign. Despite that, Mason negligently left a slippery, wet floor without putting up a ents warning or roping off the area. Martha slipped and fell on this wet floor. Stone is liable for Mason's negligence, however Mason is not because of the doctrine of respondeat superior. Mason is liable for his own negligence and Stone is not, because Mason breached his fiduciary duty to follow reasonable instructions. Neither Stone nor Mason is liable for the accident because there was no intentional wrongdoing. O Stone is liable under respondeat superior and Mason is liable under the doctrine of negligence. AID Question 8 2 pts Ye Transportation Inc. hired Ralph to drive busses for a school district. Ralph had a bad driving record, however Ye didn't know that because he didn't check. Ye did not train Ralph how to drive the bus safely. Ralph negligently caused an accident while driving the bus as part of his normal work activities. Under these circumstances: Ye is liable for negligent hiring O Ye is liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior. Ralph is liable for negligence Only a and b are correct. O Only a, b and c are correct. rise D Question 9 2 pts Peter hired Ben to act as a property manager at one of Peter's apartments. Peter told Ben to rent the apartment at no less than $2,400/month. Ben told Josielene that he couldn't rent her the apartment for less than $2,400 and then recanted, saying, "let's just see if it goes through." He then signed a lease (on behalf of Peter) to rent the apartment to Josielene for $2,100. If Peter later accepts Josielene's payments of $2,100/month: $2,100. The lease agreement is binding because Ben had implied authority to rent the apartment to Josielene for The lease agreement is binding because Peter ratified an unauthorized contract. The lease agreement is not binding because Ben lacked authority to rent the apartment for $2,100/month The lease agreement is not binding because Ben breached his fiduciary duty to obey reasonable instructions. 199+